Theodore Ts'o writes:
> I have to ask --- ***why*** are you (and other people) running
> badblocks in 2017? Badblocks as a thing started becoming irrelevant
> for e2fsprogs's purpose sometime around 2003-2005, when SATA was
> introduced, and drive electronics were smart enough that they could be
>
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:19:28PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Given the device size increases and RAM/CPU improvements since all these
> things occurred, is there any value to increasing the defaults? Does anyone
> have any data? If not then what tests would be valuable?
>
> I often run many bad
#554794 concerns the time it takes to run badblocks for any particular
value of the -c option (count of blocks to do at once).
At the time (2009) it wasn't clear if larger values of -c improved runtime,
although one user (in 2011) reports 10% improvement.
The current -c (block count) default is 6
3 matches
Mail list logo
